POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 1/28, we finished our discussion of the Wood case, paying particular attention to the battle of the footnotes between Justices Sotomayor and Stevens. We began our discussion of the Citizens United case, and the commentary surrounding it. We will continue with the Citizens United case next week. The additional assignment for Tuesday, February 2 is to read the following excerpts from the Citizens United opinion (which can be found on the Supreme Court website, as we've previously accessed it): from Justice Kennedy's opinion, pp. 20-32 (as the pages are numbered within the opinion--pages 27-39 of the entire pdf page numbering); from Justice Stevens' dissent, pp.1-3 and 23-56 (pdf 88-90;110-143). These sections focus on the First Amendment rights of corporations.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
January 26, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 1/26, I distributed two handouts: one was the assignment for Thursday, which is reproduced below, and the other was the two formal questions on which the Supreme Court had granted certiorari. We started our discussion of the Wood case, going over the procedure in habeus corpus cases, the questions that the majority did and did not decide to answer, and the facts that they looked at regarding the evidence before the state court. We looked at the structure and outline of the majority opinion. We will continue (and finish) our discussion of Wood on Thursday.
Assignment for Thursday 1/28/2010:
Please read and prepare to discuss the following articles and commentary regarding last week’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. (Some of these sites may require (free) registration.)
Two articles by Adam Liptak in the New York Times—
“Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit” 1/22/10
www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html
“Justices Turn Minor Movie Case Into Blockbuster” 1/23/10
www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/us/politics/23scotus.html
An article by Robert Barnes in the Washington Post—
“Justice Kennedy Was Key to Conservatives Win in Campaign Finance Decision” 1/24/10
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/23/AR2010012302679_pf.html
An article in the New York Sun by Joseph Goldstein—
“ACLU May Reverse Course on Campaign Finance Limits After Supreme Court Ruling” 1/24/2010
www.nysun/com/national/aclu-may-reverse-course-on-campaign-finance/86899/
The editorial in the 1/26/10 Bangor Daily News
“Corporate Citizenship”
www.bangordailynews.com/detail/135505.html
In class today, Tuesday 1/26, I distributed two handouts: one was the assignment for Thursday, which is reproduced below, and the other was the two formal questions on which the Supreme Court had granted certiorari. We started our discussion of the Wood case, going over the procedure in habeus corpus cases, the questions that the majority did and did not decide to answer, and the facts that they looked at regarding the evidence before the state court. We looked at the structure and outline of the majority opinion. We will continue (and finish) our discussion of Wood on Thursday.
Assignment for Thursday 1/28/2010:
Please read and prepare to discuss the following articles and commentary regarding last week’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. (Some of these sites may require (free) registration.)
Two articles by Adam Liptak in the New York Times—
“Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit” 1/22/10
www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html
“Justices Turn Minor Movie Case Into Blockbuster” 1/23/10
www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/us/politics/23scotus.html
An article by Robert Barnes in the Washington Post—
“Justice Kennedy Was Key to Conservatives Win in Campaign Finance Decision” 1/24/10
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/23/AR2010012302679_pf.html
An article in the New York Sun by Joseph Goldstein—
“ACLU May Reverse Course on Campaign Finance Limits After Supreme Court Ruling” 1/24/2010
www.nysun/com/national/aclu-may-reverse-course-on-campaign-finance/86899/
The editorial in the 1/26/10 Bangor Daily News
“Corporate Citizenship”
www.bangordailynews.com/detail/135505.html
Thursday, January 21, 2010
January 21, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 1/21, we started with a discussion of the commerce clause cases of U.S. v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995) and U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). We then continued and finished our discussion of the Comstock oral argument. The assignment for Tuesday 1/26 is to read and prepare to discuss the case of Wood v. Allen, decided January 20, 2010. (You can access the case by going to the Supreme Court website, selecting Recent Opinions, and selecting this case.)
In class today, Thursday 1/21, we started with a discussion of the commerce clause cases of U.S. v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995) and U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). We then continued and finished our discussion of the Comstock oral argument. The assignment for Tuesday 1/26 is to read and prepare to discuss the case of Wood v. Allen, decided January 20, 2010. (You can access the case by going to the Supreme Court website, selecting Recent Opinions, and selecting this case.)
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
January 19, 2010
POS 359-The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 1/19, I distributed one handout, a recent opinion column regarding the power of Congress to mandate the purchase of health insurance. We finished our discussion of Michigan v. Fisher from last week, and began out discussion of U.S. v. Comstock. We discussed the power of states to civilly commit sexual predators, the spending power of Congress, and had gotten up to the scope of the interstate commerce power of Congress. We will continue with the Comstock oral argument on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 1/21 is to read the handout, and re-read the Comstock oral argument with the added background of today's classroom discussion.
In class today, Tuesday 1/19, I distributed one handout, a recent opinion column regarding the power of Congress to mandate the purchase of health insurance. We finished our discussion of Michigan v. Fisher from last week, and began out discussion of U.S. v. Comstock. We discussed the power of states to civilly commit sexual predators, the spending power of Congress, and had gotten up to the scope of the interstate commerce power of Congress. We will continue with the Comstock oral argument on Thursday. The assignment for Thursday 1/21 is to read the handout, and re-read the Comstock oral argument with the added background of today's classroom discussion.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
January 14, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 1/14, I distributed one handout, 18 USC 4248 regarding civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons (see next Tuesday's assignment). We talked about yesterday's 5-4 decision disallowing cameras in the trial of the California gay marriage ban, and also two posting on the c-span site, one the stakeout following the NFL anti-trust case, and the other the 2nd Circuit oral argument in Fox v. FCC regarding "fleeting expletives". We then went on to discuss the assignment for today, the opinions in Michigan v. Fisher. We will finish that discussion next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday is to read the oral argument in a case that was argued this week, U.S. v. Comstock. To access the oral argument transcript, go the the Supreme Court's site
www.supremecourtus.gov
select "oral arguments"
select "argument transcripts"
select 08-1224, U.S. v. Comstock 1/12/2010.
Read and prepare to discuss this case regarding the power of Congress under the "necessary and proper" clause to order civil commitment of sex offenders after their prison term is up.
In class today, Thursday 1/14, I distributed one handout, 18 USC 4248 regarding civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons (see next Tuesday's assignment). We talked about yesterday's 5-4 decision disallowing cameras in the trial of the California gay marriage ban, and also two posting on the c-span site, one the stakeout following the NFL anti-trust case, and the other the 2nd Circuit oral argument in Fox v. FCC regarding "fleeting expletives". We then went on to discuss the assignment for today, the opinions in Michigan v. Fisher. We will finish that discussion next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday is to read the oral argument in a case that was argued this week, U.S. v. Comstock. To access the oral argument transcript, go the the Supreme Court's site
www.supremecourtus.gov
select "oral arguments"
select "argument transcripts"
select 08-1224, U.S. v. Comstock 1/12/2010.
Read and prepare to discuss this case regarding the power of Congress under the "necessary and proper" clause to order civil commitment of sex offenders after their prison term is up.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
January 12, 2010
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 1/12, I distributed three handouts: the syllabus, a list of the Justices, and selections from the U.S. Constitution. We went over them, and I also discussed last term's 6th Amendment case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, and yesterday's oral argument in Briscoe v. Virginia, both dealing with the right to confront at trial the technicians who write up the crime lab reports used in many criminal trials. The assignment for Thursday January 14, 2010:
-Go to the Supreme Court’s official website:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
-select “Recent Decisions”
-select
R-5 12/7/09 09-91 Michigan v. Fisher
and read and prepare to discuss it for Thursday’s class (nothing written, just read both the majority and dissenting opinions and think about which you find more persuasive).
In class today, Tuesday 1/12, I distributed three handouts: the syllabus, a list of the Justices, and selections from the U.S. Constitution. We went over them, and I also discussed last term's 6th Amendment case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, and yesterday's oral argument in Briscoe v. Virginia, both dealing with the right to confront at trial the technicians who write up the crime lab reports used in many criminal trials. The assignment for Thursday January 14, 2010:
-Go to the Supreme Court’s official website:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
-select “Recent Decisions”
-select
R-5 12/7/09 09-91 Michigan v. Fisher
and read and prepare to discuss it for Thursday’s class (nothing written, just read both the majority and dissenting opinions and think about which you find more persuasive).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)